"Running it back" is a waste of everyone's time. History shows us this.

[17wasEZ]

Also id love to list you all the teams where bottoming out hasn't earned a championship 

This is DEFINITELY a concern.  Pitino submarined us to get a shot at Duncan, which turned into Mercer, Billups, Moiso, etc.  That obviously didn't work.

So bottoming out doesn't guarantee anything except a chance at getting an elite player.  But without doing it, you have NO chance.  Or only a very, very tiny chance.

The Lakers were my first thought... they got Shaq via a trade and Kobe with the 13th pick (well, technically a trade) after making the playoffs the prior two years.

The Lakers are a very unique situation.  They have Hollywood, and Shaq wanted to make movies.  So they are the exception to this rule.  But Boston has no such luck.  Beantown is no more desirable than Philly, Houston, Dallas, or any of the other pretty-great-but-not-awesome cities in this country.  In fact some might argue it's worse than those towns because of the weather.  Either way, we need a top 3 pick or we ain't goin' nowhere.

What about dallas or the lakers?

Also its not like a ton of different teams in general have won the past 15 years

This proves my point!!  A lot of different teams haven't won in the last 15 years.  That's because you need an elite player to compete, but once you have that elite player, you will be able to compete for a decade or more.

The best (and practically only way) of acquiring an elite player happens via the draft.  We must go down to the basement in order to get back up to the penthouse.

Two points:

First, ML Carr submarined the Celtics with the tank job.  Pitino tanked the Celtics by NOT keeping Chauncey Billups and picking his guy Mercer with the 6th pick.

Second (for Chalm), Shaq wasn't traded to LA.  He signed in LA as a FA.

Doc was the one guy who could get a FA to consider Boston as a place to come to.  A team either needs to have elite weather or elite coaches to attract elite FA players.  If not, a crafty GM to pick up elite players via trade.

[Celtics18]

Exactly.

The list of teams who successfully rebuilt their way to a title may be fairly short, but I can guarantee you that the list of teams who did it through free agency and selecting players in the middle of the first round is far, far shorter.

Okay, I'll play. Team's that have won titles since 2000 without a top 5 lottery pick of their own.

Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Detroit

Your turn.

LAL don't count because they are the Lakers.  That's how they got Kobe (dropped b/c he wanted to play in LA) and Shaq (free agent).  If you move the Celtics to Los Angeles and have them become a magnet for celebrities, we'll talk.  The Lakers have stayed relevant throughout the years because they're the biggest free agent draw in the league.  The Celtics have never signed a superstar free agent.

Dallas was built around a lottery pick superstar.  Not a top 5 pick, but he was top 10, and would've gone higher in today's NBA where foreigners are better scouted.

Boston used a top 5 pick to trade for Ray Allen, which directly led to KG coming to Boston, so they don't count either.

So you're left with the Pistons.  The only team to do it in the past 40 years.  Even the Pistons had a top 5 pick the summer before winning their title, though they picked Darko, so that doesn't count, for obvious reasons.

Yes, this is a hard and fast rule where the exceptions outweigh the examples that fit the rule. 

Don't refuse facts because they don't fit your formula. 

[CelticG1]

Exactly.

The list of teams who successfully rebuilt their way to a title may be fairly short, but I can guarantee you that the list of teams who did it through free agency and selecting players in the middle of the first round is far, far shorter.

Okay, I'll play. Team's that have won titles since 2000 without a top 5 lottery pick of their own.

Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Detroit

Your turn.

LAL don't count because they are the Lakers.  That's how they got Kobe (dropped b/c he wanted to play in LA) and Shaq (free agent).  If you move the Celtics to Los Angeles and have them become a magnet for celebrities, we'll talk. 

Dallas was built around a lottery pick superstar.  Not a top 5 pick, but he was top 10, and would've gone higher in today's NBA where foreigners are better scouted.

Boston used a top 5 pick to trade for Ray Allen, which directly led to KG coming to Boston, so they don't count either.

So you're left with the Pistons.  The only team to do it in the past 40 years.  Even the Pistons had a top 5 pick the summer before winning their title, though they picked Darko, so that doesn't count, for obvious reasons.

Next time I'd appreciate it if you'd lay out the rules beforehand. Anyway, who's on your list?

  "I'll bet you can't list any teams that meet a certain criteria, and if you can I'll claim that most of those teams "don't count"". It's a favorite game on celticsblog.

Haha its a hilarious game.  Very similar to the "if your best player is a pg you can't win a championship" I love that non sensicle one.

Good thing the clips didn't let that trade happen. They would habe automatically lost a chamce at a championship.

[PhoSita]

Don't refuse facts because they don't fit your formula.

I'm not "refusing facts."

The 2004 Detroit Pistons are a marvelous exception to the general rule that you need superstars to win titles, and superstars are almost always taken with a top 10 draft pick.

I'm not arguing that the 2004 Pistons didn't happen. 

When I say "they don't count" in response to somebody who points at the Pistons, or the Lakers, I'm saying that those teams followed a model of rebuilding that I don't believe is worth following.

Why?  Well, you can't follow the Lakers model because Boston is not Los Angeles, and that's about all there is to it.

You can follow the Pistons model, and every season there's at least one team in the league that tries.  But the rule changes against defense are one reason that it's become harder.  The Pistons could just shut down everybody they faced, so they didn't need elite scorers.  It's much harder to do that these days, and the league wants it that way.

The other reason is that putting together a bunch of All-Star level talents is really hard to do, even harder in some respects than building a talented core through the draft.  You have to acquire the right free agents, you have to keep them together despite cap restraints, and you have to get them to mesh together perfectly.  Then you have to get lucky enough to not face any superstar laden superteams in the playoffs.

So, you can choose to look at the Pistons as proof that you don't need to become a mediocre team and get draft assets in order to build a contender.  But I think the fact that they are the only team in the last few decades to win a title that way shows that your chances of winning a title that way, or even of building a contender, are extremely low.

The point here as always is that rebuilding is NOT a sure thing.  It never is.  That's just how the league works.  The harsh reality is that your best chance is to rebuild through the draft, and for many reasons that is a very low % proposition.  But it's still the best one.

[PhoSita]

I'm not basing this criteria on who won within a certain number of years.  The point here is that drafting in the top 10 in order to get a superstar or trade a young player for a superstar is effectively a necessary precursor to putting together a championship team.  It's extremely difficult to do it in today's NBA without first getting a top 10 pick at least once.

Is it truly necessary to _draft_ that player?  Or is it more truly simply necessary to _have_ that 'top 10' player?   I think the evidence is pretty compelling that eventually _having_ top talent is the only real common characteristic.

You're absolutely right. 

The Pistons stand out because they're the only team -- that I can think of -- that's won a title in recent history (i.e. the modern NBA) without a top 10 player.  Even they had Ben Wallace, a historically great defensive center.

Having the talent is always the first step to contention in the NBA.

My argument is just that if you look at all of the teams that have been good enough to win an NBA championship, the overwhelming majority of them (i.e. pretty much all of them) acquired that top talent because somewhere along the line they were bad enough to pick in the top 10 of the draft.  Often that means actually drafting a guy who becomes the franchise star.  Sometimes that means having a top pick that allows you to pull off a trade that gives you a championship core.

In any case, it's hard to find many successful examples of teams that made an effort to put out a competitive, playoff-caliber team season after season.  The system of incentives in the NBA just isn't designed to reward making the most out of what you have unless you already have blue chip assets or a superstar in hand.

[Celtics18]

Don't refuse facts because they don't fit your formula.

I'm not "refusing facts."

The 2004 Detroit Pistons are a marvelous exception to the general rule that you need superstars to win titles, and superstars are almost always taken with a top 10 draft pick.

I'm not arguing that the 2004 Pistons didn't happen. 

When I say "they don't count" in response to somebody who points at the Pistons, or the Lakers, I'm saying that those teams followed a model of rebuilding that I don't believe is worth following.

Why?  Well, you can't follow the Lakers model because Boston is not Los Angeles, and that's about all there is to it.

You can follow the Pistons model, and every season there's at least one team in the league that tries.  But the rule changes against defense are one reason that it's become harder.  The Pistons could just shut down everybody they faced, so they didn't need elite scorers.  It's much harder to do that these days, and the league wants it that way.

The other reason is that putting together a bunch of All-Star level talents is really hard to do, even harder in some respects than building a talented core through the draft.  You have to acquire the right free agents, you have to keep them together despite cap restraints, and you have to get them to mesh together perfectly.  Then you have to get lucky enough to not face any superstar laden superteams in the playoffs.

So, you can choose to look at the Pistons as proof that you don't need to become a mediocre team and get draft assets in order to build a contender.  But I think the fact that they are the only team in the last few decades to win a title that way shows that your chances of winning a title that way, or even of building a contender, are extremely low.

The point here as always is that rebuilding is NOT a sure thing.  It never is.  That's just how the league works.  The harsh reality is that your best chance is to rebuild through the draft, and for many reasons that is a very low % proposition.  But it's still the best one.

And, you skipped Dallas, but that's because Dirk is from Europe.  It's still an exception that needs to be explained away. 

Of course, it helps to have top ten talent if you want to contend for a title, but there's more than one way to acquire that talent.  The tank proponents are fond of saying "the only way" to become a title contender is to become really, really bad and hope to land a superstar in the draft.  When some of us point out that history has shown that this is absolutely not the only way, that, as a matter of fact most contenders in recent years have not been built this way, then we get a lot of "yes, but" responses. 

We already have a player on our roster who has been a top fifteen to twenty player in the league, and with a little luck could get back there again.  We have some solid assets around him who we can either use to upgrade or keep depending on how things develop. 

The notion that tearing everything apart and rebuilding from scratch is what builds titleists is simply not true.  Miami got Wade in the draft, but they had to add Shaq to him to win a title, and later Lebron.  Tim Duncan wouldn't have won four titles if he hadn't had first David Robinson, and later Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Bryant needed the addition of Shaquille O'neal and later Pau Gasol.  Dirk needed a miraculous blending of veterans to help lift him to his crown. Tanking may have helped land us Garnett and Allen, but a big factor in our winning a title was that we held on to Paul Pierce, and a big key to us getting back to the finals two years later was that we also kept Rondo, and to an extent, Perkins. 

In short, making your team as bad as you can on purpose in the hopes of landing a franchise star and getting to the promised land has not shown to be a successful strategy to building a champion.  On the other hand, starting with elite level talent and finding ways to add to that talent has proven to yield champions. 

[PhoSita]

And, you skipped Dallas, but that's because Dirk is from Europe.  It's still an exception that needs to be explained away. 

Um . . . I didn't "skip" Dallas.  I never said it had anything to do with Dirk being from Europe, except that he would have gone even higher today than he did in 1997. 

As it is, Dirk was a #9 pick.  So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

When some of us point out that history has shown that this is absolutely not the only way, that, as a matter of fact most contenders in recent years have not been built this way, then we get a lot of "yes, but" responses.

You can point to one or two teams in the modern NBA (post-merger) that have built a contender that way.  I don't really see how that qualifies as "most contenders in recent years."

When somebody says "you have to draft in order to become elite," they're not necessarily saying you have to go with the OKC plan -- i.e. draft an entire group of 3-4 stars by drafting high multiple years in a row.

Drafting a franchise superstar (e.g. Dirk) and building around them for many years and finally getting it right over a decade later still counts.  You still needed that elite franchise superstar to carry you to a title.

The '08 Celtics team counts twofold in that sense.  The Celtics drafted Pierce at #10 back in 98.  Then they got the #5 pick in 2007, which they traded for Ray Allen.  Without Pierce or Ray Allen on board, KG never agrees to come to Boston.

So that was twice the Celtics were among the 10 worst teams in the league prior to getting assets that led to banner #18.

In short, making your team as bad as you can on purpose in the hopes of landing a franchise star and getting to the promised land has not shown to be a successful strategy to building a champion.  On the other hand, starting with elite level talent and finding ways to add to that talent has proven to yield champions.

Again, you've lost me.

My whole point is that in order to get that elite level talent, you have to be bad first.  You can't "find ways to add to that talent" until you have the elite talent in the first place.

I get that you are operating on the premise that the Celtics have elite talent in place, and that's why you're making this argument.

I disagree.  I don't view Rondo as that kind of player.  I don't think we have that elite talent yet, and that's why we need to get back into the top 10 of the draft (ideally top 5) in order to get that elite talent. 

The caveat is that there's a chance we can trade Rondo and a mix of our other pieces to get that elite talent.  I think you'd still need to have a nice draft pick to package with Rondo for that to work, but it does mean the Celtics don't necessarily have to be one of the absolute worst teams. 

[connor]

What if there is a chance that KG would waive his NTC at the deadline to play half a season for a team with a real shot at a title?

If Danny goes to Doc and says come back for another run with KG and PP, we get Rondo and Sully back plus a draft pick. We do everything we can do attract some vets to fill out the roster and see what happens. If it all fails at the end of the season Doc gets released from his contract when we officially start our rebuild and can sign with whatever team he wants (with the NBA coaching turnover there will be plenty of positions open).

If we get Doc on board we can get KG on board.

If we get extremely lucky and everything pans out for us (some key injuries to other teams like Wade/Bosh/Granger) maybe we are a dark horse with Rondo going wild int he playoffs.

If not we have KG and PP to trade at the deadline, with huge expiring contracts and plenty of talent to push another team over the line to championship contender. We tank the rest of the season and end up with a decent lottery pick. We probably get a few bloated contracts and a first or two for KG and PP (maybe even move one or all of Terry/Lee/Bass to teams needing help).

That doesn't sound too bad to me. Its all predicated on the idea that KG might be willing to be a mercenary for half a season, but I think there is a good chance he's willing to go somewhere for one last hurrah before he retires.

[LooseCannon]

My argument is just that if you look at all of the teams that have been good enough to win an NBA championship, the overwhelming majority of them (i.e. pretty much all of them) acquired that top talent because somewhere along the line they were bad enough to pick in the top 10 of the draft.  Often that means actually drafting a guy who becomes the franchise star.  Sometimes that means having a top pick that allows you to pull off a trade that gives you a championship core.

My argument is that you don't have to be bad enough to pick in the top 5 of the draft.  If you get in the bottom five for a reason other than injuries, your team is usually in a very bad situation that is hard to get out of.  It's okay to have a season where you win less than 30 games.  It's bad to have a roster where 30 games is your best-case scenario.

One thing that teams should do is try to get draft picks from teams several years into the future, where a playoff team might suddenly be in the lottery (which is why I think a 2016 pick from the Clippers may have been worth more than a 2014) or a team that gives a lottery-protected pick might still be horrible when the protection wears off.

[Celtics18]

And, you skipped Dallas, but that's because Dirk is from Europe.  It's still an exception that needs to be explained away. 

Um . . . I didn't "skip" Dallas.  I never said it had anything to do with Dirk being from Europe, except that he would have gone even higher today than he did in 1997. 

As it is, Dirk was a #9 pick.  So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

When some of us point out that history has shown that this is absolutely not the only way, that, as a matter of fact most contenders in recent years have not been built this way, then we get a lot of "yes, but" responses.

You can point to one or two teams in the modern NBA that have built a contender that way.  I don't really see how that qualifies as "most contenders in recent years."

When somebody says "you have to draft in order to become elite," they're not necessarily saying you have to go with the OKC plan -- i.e. draft an entire group of 3-4 stars by being drafting high multiple years in a row.

Drafting a franchise superstar (e.g. Dirk) and building around them for many years and finally getting it right over a decade later still counts.  You still needed that elite franchise superstar to carry you to a title.

In short, making your team as bad as you can on purpose in the hopes of landing a franchise star and getting to the promised land has not shown to be a successful strategy to building a champion.  On the other hand, starting with elite level talent and finding ways to add to that talent has proven to yield champions.

Again, you've lost me.

My whole point is that in order to get that elite level talent, you have to be bad first.  You can't "find ways to add to that talent" until you have the elite talent in the first place.

I get that you are operating on the premise that the Celtics have elite talent in place, and that's why you're making this argument.

I disagree.  I don't view Rondo as that kind of player.  I don't think we have that elite talent yet, and that's why we need to get back into the top 10 of the draft (ideally top 5) in order to get that elite talent. 

The caveat is that there's a chance we can trade Rondo and a mix of our other pieces to get that elite talent.  I think you'd still need to have a nice draft pick to package with Rondo for that to work, but it does mean the Celtics don't necessarily have to be one of the absolute worst teams.

I think Rondo is close enough to being an "elite talent" that it makes sense to hang onto him and try to build around him.  In 2007, many people were saying that Paul Pierce wasn't a guy you could build a contender around.  And, he wasn't, until Danny added Garnett and Allen. 

I think people get too hung up on placing a given number on what "level" talent you need to win a title.  It used to be said that you needed a top five talent to win a title.  Now, that number has been upped to a top ten talent.  When the Celtics win their next title led by Rajon Rondo that number will be upped again to top fifteen talent. 

To add to that, I think that most everybody would agree that currently Lebron James and Kevin Durant are the two best players in the game.  I'm of the opinion that after those two the difference in talent level between the third best player and the twentieth best player isn't all that significant. 

I mean, try to find a consensus ranking on the top players in the league after James and Durant.  I think you'll find that there could be endless debates on where players would fit on that scale.  Rondo was in that sizable secondary group before he got injured.  Unless you are going to trade him away for Lebron James or Kevin Durant, I feel that it makes more sense just to keep him and see what we can add around him. 

[LooseCannon]

I think Rondo is close enough to being an "elite talent" that it makes sense to hang onto him and try to build around him.  In 2007, many people were saying that Paul Pierce wasn't a guy you could build a contender around.  And, he wasn't, until Danny added Garnett and Allen. 

Some people get hung up on the idea of building around Rondo because that implies to them that he is the best player on the team and Rondo may not be good enough to single-handedly carry a team like that.

However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Rondo can be the second-best player on the team.  Does acquiring a #1 guy to go with Rondo count as building around Rondo? 

I'd argue that Rondo's flaws suggest that you shouldn't go out and get a wing who is a poor three-point shooter and that you are better off with at least one starting big who can spread the floor (preferably with more range than Bass).  So maybe so.

[PhoSita]

My argument is just that if you look at all of the teams that have been good enough to win an NBA championship, the overwhelming majority of them (i.e. pretty much all of them) acquired that top talent because somewhere along the line they were bad enough to pick in the top 10 of the draft.  Often that means actually drafting a guy who becomes the franchise star.  Sometimes that means having a top pick that allows you to pull off a trade that gives you a championship core.

My argument is that you don't have to be bad enough to pick in the top 5 of the draft.  If you get in the bottom five for a reason other than injuries, your team is usually in a very bad situation that is hard to get out of.  It's okay to have a season where you win less than 30 games.  It's bad to have a roster where 30 games is your best-case scenario.

You're right.  The problem is that the best chance you have of getting a real franchise player is in the top 5.  But being in the top 5 does require you to completely strip your franchise down and risk descending into a negative spiral that it's difficult to get out of, even if you get that incredibly talented young star.

I feel strongly that it's difficult to make an argument that you can have a viable rebuilding strategy that doesn't involve picking in the top 10 at least once, though.

Sure, in theory you could get very, very lucky and build a contender out of players like Rondo, Josh Smith, Deandre Jordan, Roy Hibbert etc picking in the teens and twenties.  But the odds of that are even lower than getting a top 5 pick that you can build around.  Especially in the new luxury tax climate where keeping multiple complementary stars is especially difficult.

[LooseCannon]

Sure, in theory you could get very, very lucky and build a contender out of players like Rondo, Josh Smith, Deandre Jordan, Roy Hibbert etc picking in the teens and twenties.  But the odds of that are even lower than getting a top 5 pick that you can build around.  Especially in the new luxury tax climate where keeping multiple complementary stars is especially difficult.

But the Celtics already have a player like Rondo, so they don't have to be as lucky as other teams in putting together a contender without a top 10 pick.

[BballTim]

Sure, in theory you could get very, very lucky and build a contender out of players like Rondo, Josh Smith, Deandre Jordan, Roy Hibbert etc picking in the teens and twenties.  But the odds of that are even lower than getting a top 5 pick that you can build around.  Especially in the new luxury tax climate where keeping multiple complementary stars is especially difficult.

  I doubt the odds would be that much lower if they were lower at all. It's worth trying though, you can blow your team up pretty much whenever you want but you can only try the other way at certain times and in certain situations.

[SHAQATTACK]

oh , I could have lived with the initial "want list" that Danny proposed.   Seemed fair given all we were giving up .

The cheap skate deal the Clippers GM offered would leave everybody regretting and second guessing.  for years.

their deal seemed to put a very low value on a player dear to most Celtics fans......and the audacity of their side to imply as much...left a bad taste with me

They wanted a banner for pennies on the dollar

Clippers are a sleazy cheap skate owner